DOCSLIB.ORG

Human–Black Bear Conflicts: a Review of Common Management Practices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human–Black Bear Conflicts: a Review of Common Management Practices Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Human–Wildlife Interactions Monographs Berryman Institute 2018 Human–Black Bear Conflicts: A Review of Common Management Practices Carl W. Lackey Nevada Department of Wildlife, [email protected] Stewart W. Breck USDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Brian F. Wakeling Nevada Department of Wildlife, [email protected] H. Bryant White Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi_monographs Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Lackey, C. W., S. W. Breck, B. F. Wakeling, and B. White. 2018. Human-Black Bear Conflicts: A er view of common management practices. Human-Widlife Interactions Monograph 2:1-68. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Berryman Institute at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human–Wildlife Interactions Monographs by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUMAN–BLACK BEAR CONFLICTS A REVIEW OF COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Carl W. Lackey Stewart W. Breck Brian F. Wakeling Bryant White HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS MONOGRAPH NUMBER 2 Human-Wildlife Interactions: Monograph 2. A publication of the Jack H. Berryman Institute Press, Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are indebted to a large number of people and organizations for their support of this publication and their assistance in bringing it to fruition, including Richard Beausoleil (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Jeremy Hurst (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), and Carole Stanko (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). We would also like to thank Reid DeWalt, Mark Vieira, Melanie Kaknes, Casey Westbrook (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), Heather Reich (Nevada Department of Wildlife), and Tom Decker (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for reviewing this document. This document was requested, reviewed, and endorsed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). Significant portions of this document were drawn with permission from the North East Black Bear Technical Committee’s 2012 document, An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options (Hurst et al. 2012), which in turn drew upon several state and provincial black bear management plans across North America. We express our gratitude to all fellow bear managers in North America for their willingness to share this valuable information. Members of the AFWA ad hoc Human–Black Bear Conflicts Task Force include: Richard Beausoleil (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center), Michael Boudreau (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources), Maria Davidson (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries), Jeremy Hurst (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), Carl W. Lackey (Nevada Department of Wildlife), Dave McFarland (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Colleen Olfenbuttel (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission), Harry Spiker (Maryland Department of Natural Resources), Carole Stanko (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife), Emma Vost (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources), Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife) and Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). We thank the Jack H. Berryman Institute (BI), Utah State University, for editorial, design, and publication support. Dr. Michael Conover was key to this guide being published as the Editor of the BI Monograph series of the journal, Human–Wildlife Interactions. We acknowledge the comments provided by Dr. Conover and three anonymous reviewers which greatly improved the monograph. We could not have possibly produced this document without the able assistance of Terry A. Messmer, BI Director, Rae Ann Hart, BI Staff Associate, and Annie Christensen, PDP Designer, who speared the final publication layout and design process. Their generous sharing of time and expertise added immeasurably to the accuracy and completeness of this publication. Funding for the publication of the monograph was provided by Nevada Department of Wildlife, AFWA, U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services, and the BI. THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED by Wildlife Resotration funds, through grants administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration: Partnering to fund conservation and connect people with nature. The mention of commercial products in this publication is for the reader’s convenience and is not intended as an endorsement of those products nor discrimination against similar products not mentioned. This publication should be cited as: Lackey, C.W., S.W. Breck, B.F. Wakeling, and B. White. 2018. Human–Black Bear Conflicts: A review of common management practices. Human–Wildlife Interactions Monograph 2:1-68. Cover photos provided by 9caribou.com (top), Jim Nelson (middle-left), Wildlife Conservation Society (middle-center), John T. Humphrey AKAwolf.com (middle-right), and Published by the Berryman Institute Hurst et al. 2012 (bottom-right). Logan, UT Design and Layout by PDP at Utah State University CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abstract 1 Introduction 4 The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Human–Bear Conflicts ................... 6 “I Hold the Smoking Gun” by Chris Parmeter ............................................................................ 8 Status of the American Black Bear 9 Status of Human–Bear Conflicts 13 Quantifying Conflicts .................................................................................................................. 15 Definition of Terms Associated with Human–Bear Management .............................................. 15 Methods to Address Human–Bear Conflicts 18 Public Education ......................................................................................................................... 19 Law and Ordinance Enforcement ............................................................................................... 22 Exclusionary Methods ................................................................................................................ 23 Capture and Release ................................................................................................................... 27 Aversive Conditioning ................................................................................................................ 31 Repellents ................................................................................................................................... 37 Damage Compensation Programs ............................................................................................. 38 Supplemental and Diversionary Feeding ................................................................................... 40 Depredation (Kill) Permits ......................................................................................................... 42 Management Bears (Agency Kill) .............................................................................................. 43 Privatized Conflict Management ................................................................................................ 44 Population Management 45 Regulated Hunting and Trapping ................................................................................................ 46 Control of Non-Hunting Mortality .............................................................................................. 49 Fertility Control ........................................................................................................................... 51 Habitat Management ................................................................................................................... 53 No Population Intervention ......................................................................................................... 55 Research Needs 57 Agency Policy 58 Literature Cited 59 1 “Human–Black Bear conflicts are ABSTRACT analogous to heart disease. We all know that prevention is crucial, Most human–black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict but too many people wait until the occurs when people make anthropogenic foods like garbage, dog symptoms become a problem to food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees available to bears. Bears take action and by then it’s too change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and late.” may damage property or cause public safety concerns in the process. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive Rich Beausoleil non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve Washington Department of immediate problems, which do little to address root causes Fish and Wildlife of human–bear conflict. As long as bears find easy access to garbage, bird feeders, urban fruit trees, and other food subsidies, conflicts are likely to continue. Managers and the public need to understand the available tools to stop human–bear conflict and reduce effects on bear populations. Rhetorically blaming bears for conflicts by labeling them as problem bears or nuisance bears is becoming increasing unpopular. Ultimately human behavior must change by reducing anthropogenic resources that cause human– bear conflicts. This process requires a different suite of tools and should be the primary focus for bear managers interested in lowering the potential for conflict. Our objective
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MOLECULAR GENETIC IDENTIFICATION of a MEXICAN ONZA SPECIMEN AS a PUMA (PUMA CONCOLOR) in the Americas, There Are Two Documented
    Cryptozoology, 12, 1993-1996, 42-49 © 1996 International Society of Cryptozoology MOLECULAR GENETIC IDENTIFICATION OF A MEXICAN ONZA SPECIMEN AS A PUMA (PUMA CONCOLOR) PE tit A. DRATCH Laboratory of Viral Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Building 560/Room 21-105, Frederick, Maryland 21702, U.S.A. and National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory Ashland, Oregon 96520, U.S.A. WENDY RosLuND National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory Ashland, Oregon 96520, U.S.A. JANICE S. MARTENSON, MELANIE CULVER, AND STEPHEN J. O'BRIEN' Laboratory of Viral Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Building 560/Room 21-105, Frederick, Maryland 21702, U.S.A. ABSTRACT: Tissue samples from an alleged Mexican Onza, shot in the western Sierra Madre in 1986, were subjected to several biochemical assays in an attempt to determine the specimen's relationship to felid species of North America. Protein analyses included isoenzyme electrophoresis and albumin isoelectric focusing. Mi- tochondrial DNA was assayed for restriction fragment lengths with 28 restriction enzymes, and the NÐ5 gene was sequenced. The resulting protein and rnitochondrial DNA characteristics of the Onza were indistinguishable from those of North Amer- ican pumas. INTRODUCTION In the Americas, there are two documented species of large cats: 1) Puma concolor, the puma, also called mountain lion, cougar, and panther in dif- ferent regions of North America, and known as leon in Mexico; and 2) Panthera onca, the jaguar, or tigre as it is known south of the U.S. border. To whom correspondence should be addressed. 42 DRATCH ET AL.: ONZA MOLECULAR GENETIC IDENTIFICATION 43 Flo.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-2017 Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management Jarod D. Raithel Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Raithel, Jarod D., "Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human- Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management" (2017). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 6633. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6633 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTEGRATING BLACK BEAR BEHAVIOR, SPATIAL ECOLOGY, AND POPULATION DYNAMICS IN A HUMAN-DOMINATED LANDSCAPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT by Jarod D. Raithel A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Ecology Approved: _______________________ _______________________ Lise M. Aubry, Ph.D. Melissa J. Reynolds-Hogland, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member _______________________ _______________________ David N. Koons, Ph.D. Eric M. Gese, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member _______________________ _______________________ Joseph M. Wheaton, Ph.D. Mark R. McLellan, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2017 ii Copyright Jarod Raithel 2017 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management by Jarod D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Red and Gray Fox
    The Red and Gray Fox There are five species of foxes found in North America but only two, the red (Vulpes vulpes), And the gray (Urocyon cinereoargentus) live in towns or cities. Fox are canids and close relatives of coyotes, wolves and domestic dogs. Foxes are not large animals, The red fox is the larger of the two typically weighing 7 to 5 pounds, and reaching as much as 3 feet in length (not including the tail, which can be as long as 1 to 1 and a half feet in length). Gray foxes rarely exceed 11 or 12 pounds and are often much smaller. Coloration among fox greatly varies, and it is not always a sure bet that a red colored fox is indeed a “red fox” and a gray colored fox is indeed a “gray fox. The one sure way to tell them apart is the white tip of a red fox’s tail. Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus) Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Regardless of which fox both prefer diverse habitats, including fields, woods, shrubby cover, farmland or other. Both species readily adapt to urban and suburban areas. Foxes are primarily nocturnal in urban areas but this is more an accommodation in avoiding other wildlife and humans. Just because you may see it during the day doesn’t necessarily mean it’s sick. Sometimes red fox will exhibit a brazenness that is so overt as to be disarming. A homeowner hanging laundry may watch a fox walk through the yard, going about its business, seemingly oblivious to the human nearby.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Characteristics of Residential Development Shift Large Carnivore Prey Habits
    The Journal of Wildlife Management; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21098 Research Article Spatial Characteristics of Residential Development Shift Large Carnivore Prey Habits JUSTINE A. SMITH,1 Department of Environmental Studies, Center for Integrated Spatial Research, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA YIWEI WANG, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, 524 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA 95035, USA CHRISTOPHER C. WILMERS, Department of Environmental Studies, Center for Integrated Spatial Research, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA ABSTRACT Understanding how anthropogenic development affects food webs is essential to implementing sustainable growth measures, yet little is known about how the spatial configuration of residential development affects the foraging behavior and prey habits of top predators. We examined the influence of the spatial characteristics of residential development on prey composition in the puma (Puma concolor). We located the prey remains of kills from 32 pumas fitted with global positioning system (GPS) satellite collars to determine the housing characteristics most influencing prey size and species composition. We examined how differences in housing density, proximity, and clustering influenced puma prey size and diversity. We found that at both local (150 m) and regional (1 km) spatial scales surrounding puma kill sites, housing density (but not the clustering of housing) was the greatest contributor to puma consumption of small prey (<20 kg), which primarily comprised human commensals or pets. The species-specific relationships between housing density and prey occupancy and detection rates assessed using camera traps were not always similar to those between housing density and proportions of diet, suggesting that pumas may exercise some diet selectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial Genomes of the United States Distribution
    fevo-09-666800 June 2, 2021 Time: 17:52 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 08 June 2021 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.666800 Mitochondrial Genomes of the United States Distribution of Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Reveal a Major Phylogeographic Break at the Great Plains Suture Zone Edited by: Fernando Marques Quintela, Dawn M. Reding1*, Susette Castañeda-Rico2,3,4, Sabrina Shirazi2†, Taxa Mundi Institute, Brazil Courtney A. Hofman2†, Imogene A. Cancellare5, Stacey L. Lance6, Jeff Beringer7, 8 2,3 Reviewed by: William R. Clark and Jesus E. Maldonado Terrence C. Demos, 1 Department of Biology, Luther College, Decorah, IA, United States, 2 Center for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Field Museum of Natural History, Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, United States, 3 Department of Biology, George United States Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States, 4 Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation, Front Royal, VA, United States, Ligia Tchaicka, 5 Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States, 6 Savannah River State University of Maranhão, Brazil Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, SC, United States, 7 Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO, *Correspondence: United States, 8 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States Dawn M. Reding [email protected] We examined phylogeographic structure in gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) across † Present address: Sabrina Shirazi, the United States to identify the location of secondary contact zone(s) between eastern Department of Ecology and and western lineages and investigate the possibility of additional cryptic intraspecific Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, divergences.
    [Show full text]
  • FOXES: Captive Rearing Considerations & Natural History
    captive REARING of foxes Elisa Fosco Director of Animal Care Walden’s Puddle, Wildlife Center of Greater Nashville CANIDAE FAMILY Includes wolves, jackals, and dogs ◼ Carnassial teeth 8 genera of fox ◼ 27 species Gray (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and Red (Vulpes vulpes) found in North America RED FOX (vulpes vulpes) “Cat-like canid” Widespread, naturally occurring in 4 continents Many variations in coat color Adapts well to urban environments Mainly carnivorous, consuming invertebrates and rodents GRAY FOX (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Among most primitive of canids Found only in North and South America Monogamous 1 of 2 canids capable of tree climbing, also good swimmers Omnivorous, consuming more vegetable matter than red fox HABITAT SELECTION RED GRAY Highly adaptable to Gray foxes are more urban environments seclusive than reds Prefers farmland, and Prefer thicker forested wooded lots with open and partially open fields brush Do NOT prefer rural landscapes BREEDING Dens are used during breeding season ◼ Crevices in rock, groundhog burrows, hollow trees, etc. Gestation: ~53 days Average litter size: 4-5 Related females co-parent NEONATE IDENTIFICATION: RED FOX White tail tip!! ◼ Identifying characteristic Charcoal fur at birth ◼ Stockings not distinguishable in first couple weeks Black elliptical pupils NEONATE IDENTIFICATION: GRAY FOX Russet patches behind ears Black stripe on dorsal surface of tail Black tail tip Fox rehabilitation Reasons for Admission: Mange HBC Gunshot Viral issues 2° Rodenticide toxicity Orphaned ◼ likely due to the above FOX MANGE Sarcoptes scabeii ◼ Mite More common in red foxes Most often treated with Ivermectin, Selemectin or Bravecto™ Standard mange treatment may also includes aggressive fluid therapy for rehydration and wound management as needed Mange is also commonly seen in coyotes, raccoons and squirrels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wily and Courageous Red Fox: Behavioural Analysis of a Mesopredator at Resource Points Shared by an Apex Predator
    animals Article The Wily and Courageous Red Fox: Behavioural Analysis of a Mesopredator at Resource Points Shared by an Apex Predator Eamonn Wooster *, Arian D. Wallach and Daniel Ramp Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, New South Wales 2007, Australia; [email protected] (A.D.W.); [email protected] (D.R.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 21 September 2019; Accepted: 31 October 2019; Published: 4 November 2019 Simple Summary: The red fox is one of the Earth’s most widespread mammalian predators. Human globalisation has further expanded its range, so that today they are found on most continents. Despite their abundance, knowledge of fox behaviour remains limited. Most studies have observed foxes either in captivity or in their native range where both they and their predators are killed by humans. We conducted a behavioural study on foxes outside of their native range in Australia, at a unique location where all wildlife are protected. We developed an ethogram to explore fox behaviour at resource points shared with a potentially deadly apex predator, the dingo. We were surprised to find that foxes were in a confident state more often than in a cautious state, even leaving territorial markings over those of dingoes. One possible explanation for the confidence of foxes is that the social stability of both foxes and dingoes makes their world more predictable. Abstract: The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a widespread and ecologically significant terrestrial mesopredator, that has expanded its range with human globalisation. Despite this, we know relatively little about their behaviour under the wide range of ecological conditions they experience, particularly how they navigate the risk of encounters with apex predators.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.MOUNTAIN LION Puma Concolor ATTACKS on a MANED
    Mastozoología Neotropical ISSN: 0327-9383 [email protected] Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Argentina Mazzolli, Marcelo MOUNTAIN LION Puma concolor ATTACKS ON A MANED WOLF Chrysocyon brachyurus AND A DOMESTIC DOG IN A FORESTRY SYSTEM Mastozoología Neotropical, vol. 16, núm. 2, diciembre, 2009, pp. 465-470 Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Tucumán, Argentina Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45712497020 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Mastozoología Neotropical, 16(2):465-470, Mendoza, 2009 ISSN 0327-9383 ©SAREM, 2009 Versión on-line ISSN 1666-0536 http://www.sarem.org.ar MOUNTAIN LION Puma concolor ATTACKS ON A MANED WOLF Chrysocyon brachyurus AND A DOMESTIC DOG IN A FORESTRY SYSTEM Marcelo Mazzolli Projeto Puma, R. Liberato Carioni 247, Lagoa, 88062-205, Florianópolis - SC, Brazil <[email protected]> ABSTRACT: Two independent attacks of mountain lions Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) on different canid species are reported in this note. One of the canids was a sub-adult captive maned wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger, 1815), revealing skull damaged by canine tooth perforation and several bruises along the body. Examination of the wounds and the killing site provided reasonable details on how the attack was conducted. The mountain lion grabbed the maned wolf from behind with both forepaws, and killed it with a bite at the nape of the neck and at the back of the skull.
    [Show full text]
  • Museum of Natural History
    p m r- r-' ME FYF-11 - - T r r.- 1. 4,6*. of the FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY THE COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BOBCAT, BLACK BEAR, AND FLORIDA PANTHER IN SOUTH FLORIDA David Steffen Maehr Volume 40, No. 1, pf 1-176 1997 == 46 1ms 34 i " 4 '· 0?1~ I. Al' Ai: *'%, R' I.' I / Em/-.Ail-%- .1/9" . -_____- UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY am published at irregular intervals Volumes contain about 300 pages and are not necessarily completed in any one calendar year. JOHN F. EISENBERG, EDITOR RICHARD FRANZ CO-EDIWR RHODA J. BRYANT, A£ANAGING EMOR Communications concerning purchase or exchange of the publications and all manuscripts should be addressed to: Managing Editor. Bulletin; Florida Museum of Natural Histoty, University of Florida P. O. Box 117800, Gainesville FL 32611-7800; US.A This journal is printed on recycled paper. ISSN: 0071-6154 CODEN: BF 5BAS Publication date: October 1, 1997 Price: $ 10.00 Frontispiece: Female Florida panther #32 treed by hounds in a laurel oak at the site of her first capture on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in central Collier County, 3 February 1989. Photograph by David S. Maehr. THE COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BOBCAT, BLACK BEAR, AND FLORIDA PANTHER IN SOUTH FLORIDA David Steffen Maehri ABSTRACT Comparisons of food habits, habitat use, and movements revealed a low probability for competitive interactions among bobcat (Lynx ndia). Florida panther (Puma concotor cooi 1 and black bear (Urns amencanus) in South Florida. All three species preferred upland forests but ©onsumed different foods and utilized the landscape in ways that resulted in ecological separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cats of Belize Jaguar Average 4.25 Ft
    WEC314 A Guide to Living with Wild Cats1 Venetia S. Briggs-Gonzalez, Rebecca G. Harvey, Frank J. Mazzotti, and William M. Giuliano2 lands. This research suggests that more wild cats live near farms than people are aware of. Considering the number of wild cats living near villages, attacks on livestock and people are rare in Belize. However, conflicts between people and cats sometimes occur when cats lack food, water and habitat, when livestock is threat- ened, or when people are unaware of the benefits to living with cats. Cats of Belize Jaguar average 4.25 ft. long, 160 lbs. Figure 1. Jaguar (Panthera onca) Credits: © Tony Rath Photography, www.tonyrath.com Sharing the Landscape Belize is home to five species of wild cats. They live mainly in forests and wetlands, and hunt animals such as paca (gibnut), coatimundi, deer, peccary, birds, reptiles, and small rodents. When farms and villages are next to forests, people and wild cats live side-by-side. In the New River area of Orange Walk District, the Lamanai Field Research Center and University of Florida are studying cats using Figure 2. Jaguar (Panthera onca) “camera traps” placed in a variety of locations on private Credits: © Tony Rath Photography, www.tonyrath.com 1. This document is WEC314, one of a series of the Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date October 2011. Reviewed October 2014. Revised June 2018. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Venetia S. Briggs-Gonzalez, research ecologist; Rebecca G. Harvey, environmental education coordinator; Frank J.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Cheetah Acinonyx Jubatus Density in North‐Central Namibia
    Received: 30 September 2018 Revised: 24 November 2019 Accepted: 8 January 2020 Published on: 26 February 2020 DOI: 10.1002/1438-390X.12045 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Trends in cheetah Acinonyx jubatus density in north- central Namibia Ezequiel Chimbioputo Fabiano1 | Chris Sutherland2 | Angela K. Fuller3 | Matti Nghikembua4 | Eduardo Eizirik5,6 | Laurie Marker4 1Department of Wildlife Management and Ecotourism, University of Namibia, Abstract Katima Mulilo, Namibia Assessing trends in abundance and density of species of conservation concern 2Department of Environmental is vital to inform conservation and management strategies. The remaining Conservation, University of population of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) largely exists outside of protected Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts areas, where they are often in conflict with humans. Despite this, the population 3U.S. Geological Survey, New York status and dynamics of cheetah outside of protected areas have received rela- Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research tively limited attention across its range. We analyzed remote camera trapping Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York data of nine surveys conducted from 2005 to 2014 in the Waterberg Conser- 4Ecology Division, Cheetah Conservation vancy, north-central Namibia, which included detections of 74 individuals Fund, Otjiwarongo, Namibia (52 adult males, 7 adult females and 15 dependents). Using spatial capture– 5Laboratório de Biologia Genômica e recapture methods, we assessed annual and seasonal trends in cheetah density. Molecular, Escola de Ciências, Pontifícia We found evidence of a stable trend in cheetah density over the study period, Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do 2 Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil with an average density of 1.94/100 km (95% confidence interval 1.33–2.84).
    [Show full text]
  • Variation of Parasite Burden Within the European Badger
    Variation of parasite burden within the European badger (Meles meles): the effect of season, habitat, body condition, gender & age on the prevalence of Eimeria melis and Capillaria Submitted by Elizabeth Rosemarie Anne Cottrell to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science by Research in Biosciences in October 2011 This thesis is available for library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has been previously submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature………………………………………………………………….. E. R. A. Cottrell MSc by Research in Biosciences – Wildlife Disease Management Table of Contents Research Project – Variation of parasite burden within the European badger (Meles meles): the effect of season, habitat, body condition, gender & age on the prevalence of Eimeria melis and Capillaria....................................................................................................1 Introduction...................................................................................................................2 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................7 Results..........................................................................................................................10 Discussion....................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]